In
this article terrorism is reflected from a social science point of view.
Terrorism is seen a complex societal problem, that must be analyzed according
to the theory of societal complexity , incasu the Compram methodology
(DeTombe, 1994). The Compram methodology is based on the theory of societal
complexity. The Compram methodology is advised by the OECD to handle complex
societal issues on global safety. This methodology gives directions to analyze
the situation, to find causes, to find interventions, to prepare and guide
negotiations and to evaluate results afterwards.

In
acting on terrorism several phases can be distinguished. The most important
phase is the prevention phase: not to have terrorist attacks at all. This can
be done by focusing on the causes on terrorism. Shifting the main human power
and money to the phase of prevention will, in the end, help to mitigate
terrorist attacks.

There
are many causes for terrorism. Some of these will be discussed like the
relation between power and idealism, between fundamentalism, identity and
religion, and between poverty and immigration. An example of trying to
influence one of the causes of terrorism is implemented in a project in
Turkey
of increasing the level of living.

The
theory of societal complexity dictates that before finding interventions the
problem has to be defined and the causes have to be analyzed. Otherwise only
effects are handled and the problem will stay the same. Looking at the way
governments in Western Europe and the
USA
react on threats of terrorism, it seems that threats of terrorism are used to
abuse the rights of civilians. Analyzing ‘war on terrorism’ of the Bush
jr. administration seems to support this statement. This results in a double
threat for the people, that of terrorist attacks and that of their own
government.

In
this article we focus on aspects of prevention of terrorism from a social
science point of view. In order to be able to prevent terrorism one needs to
know the causes of terrorism to see how these causes can be influenced by
fruitful interventions. Analyzing the causes can be performed with the theory
of societal complexity. With this theory complex societal problems like
terrorism, can be analyzed. The theory of societal complexity states that one
scientific discipline alone can never explain a complex societal problem. In
order to explain complex societal problems the knowledge of different fields
must be combined. For analyzing terrorism this needs theories of for example
religion, policy making, defense, power, psychology, sociology, immigration
and methodology. How this must be performed is described by the methodology of
societal complexity: the Compram methodology. The Compram methodology is
developed to handle societal complexity and gives
directions to analyze the situation, to find interventions, to prepare and
guide negotiations and to evaluate. The Compram methodology is advised by the
OECD to handle complex societal issues on global safety[1].

2
War and terrorism: an introduction

One
can see terrorism as an act performed by a small group of people in order to
influence the policy of the state in such a way that it benefits themselves or
people they fight for. When violence is used without an army towards a (part
of a) government we call this terrorism. Terrorism is often against one’s
own state, but can also be towards other states. Some examples of terrorism of
the last decades are fighting for justice ‘Die Rote Armee Fraction’ (RAF)
in (the former western)
Germany
(Meinhof, 1974), for
the right to rule one’s own country (Israel (Meir,1975); Basque in northern
Spain), for the opportunity to repatriate to the country of their parents
(decents from Ambon (
Indonesia
) in The Netherlands). Not all terrorist acts are negatively perceived. It
depends on one’s point of view: that of the attacker or that of the attacked.
Some positive perceived terrorism is that of the ANC in the times of Apartheid
of South Africa (Nelson Mandela) and the (non-violent) actions of Gandhi in
South Africa
and
India
.

Terrorism
is used when the means, power and people to fight a war are missing (Crefeldt,
1998). Often terrorism is initiated by a kind of idealism. Terrorists have
their desired view of the world. The government that they threaten or attack
should make this is desired world possible. In this way terrorism can be seen
as a kind of blackmail. Terrorism is about wanting to change something and
forcing one’s opinion onto other people, mostly the state. Lately most
terrorist activities happens within the Arabic countries. This causes much
pain, fear and casualties for people. Terrorism can start when the desired
goals of changing the state want to be reached, but means are low. There is
not enough money, resources or people available for political influence or for
starting a (civil) war. Then terrorism is an escape route. The group can be
small or even ‘a state in nascent’ that has no power or the means to start
a legal war. Terrorists try to persuade other groups or states with violence
to reach their claims. Terrorism can be stated as a ‘war between a group of
persons and another group or state’. Terrorist actions are suicide bombing,
water pollution, subway and internet attacks; means to put pressure to a
state.

We
call it war when one army of a state attacks an army of another state. Say,
when one state A, wants to influence the other state B in order to get a part
of their power, or to get hold of the local assets, state A can start giving
support[2]
to state B, one can start negotiating, ask an international assembly to put
pressure on the state, or start an economic boycott. If this does not help A
can start a war[3].
This causes fear, pain and results in many casualties.

Comparing
war and terrorism we see differences and similarities. War and terrorism have
in common that these are both ways to ‘solve’ a complex societal problem
ina violent way in case of
differences of opinion on how to rule a state or differences in opinion who
has the power over the territory or the resources. There is a difference
between war and terrorism in the way of using resources such as people,
materials and money. There are differences in the effect of the interventions:
the causalities, damages on each side, like death of people and damages of
buildings, cities and whole societies. This difference is huge but gradual.
There is a principle difference in legality. The wars are legal. To name a few
legal wars: the Second World War (1939-1945) and the Vietnam war.These legal wars provoke economic[4]
and mental damages on both sides for generations and do not ‘solve’ the
problem. The state has the right of violence and is allowed to send his their
young promising boys into the field to kill the young promising boys of other
countries. All legal. War can be defined as legal attacks from one government
on another. The state has a legal right to protect the territory and people
when attacked by other states.

Civil
wars are a class apart, but can be considered as a war between ‘states in
decay and states in nascent’. That was the case in
China
in the (civil) war between the communists and the nationalists.The struggle between the Irish and the English can also be framed in
this context (Brugha, 2006). In more recent times, the (civil) war between the
Israelis and the Palestinians which upsets the world regularly (Kelman, 2006) [5].

Difference
in opinion, management of territories, and economic demands can be handled in
a less damaging, more human and sustainable way. Neither terrorism nor war is
an adequate answer to such a disagreement, it is often the cause of many new
complex societal problems. These kind of major differences in opinion are part
of a complex societal problem and should be approached as a complex societal
problem and thus handled according to the directions of the theory of societal
complexity.

War
is never a solution for a complex societal problem. War only causes more
complex societal problems then before. In order to handle internal and
external state conflict one should approach the problem as a complex societal
problems and apply the theory of societal complexity to it. This means
handling the issue according to the directions of the Compram methodology.

3
The influence of people on the state policy

People
performing terrorist’s acts try to enlarge their influence on a state, often
their own state. Civilians
have, to a certain extend, to obey the state. The degrees of freedom differ
per state. The way an individual or a group of individuals can influence the
government of a state varies with the kind of government a country has. The
government in a democracy is supposed to represent the interests of all people,
but one can never have all one’s personal ideas implemented. In most cases
only a kind of general view of the people is represented. However in a
democracy there is a large space for freedom: freedom of speech and acting, as
long as it does not abuse other people. A person can influence the government
by elections, demonstrations, strikes (
France
, 2006[6])
and by the media (Hess, 1998). The direct influence of people on the government is
limited.

Although
in a democracy the influence of people is limited, in a totalitarian system
any kind of objection to the state can be followed by an arrest ending in
prison, exile or death (Solzjenitsyn,
1974; Wu, 1994). In a
totalitarian state the space of freedom is more restricted and the acts of
civilians are more controlled[7].

The
threat of terrorism is frequently popping up in all kinds of ways and in all
kinds of places in the world. In reaction there is a large demand for global
safety. One of the answers by the government to terrorist threats is
controlling; controlling the individual by implementing often technological
based, devices such as camera’s and scans. The first step in controlling the
individual is identification of a person. This assumes that the state knows
where the danger comes from; from small groups of vaguely identified persons,
who might be planning an attack. To prevent this vague attack all kinds of
controlling is allowed. Laws are rapidly changed to make these state
controlling actions legal. In order to prevent terrorist attacks, politicians
start to create total control over individuals by giving the state the right
to follow the individual in all its activities, special his/her travels by
tracking him or her down by Geographic Information Systems (
GIS
), by following the person by its cell phone and credit cards, by millions of
cameras, and by extending border controls. Border controls not only by
passports control, but also by luggage control with X-rays, stripping a person
from his or her belt and shoes, by identification through eye scan and
fingerprints. By identification on demand of a person in the street, by
controlling the books a person reads, by viewing the buying systems of the
bookstores and lending systems of libraries. In
USA
these last actions are based on the patriot act, then pushed over to
Europe
. Thus far these intruding acts were only reserved for (potential) criminals.
In the seventies there was much protest against these controls, which were at
that time less severe, now there is hardly any protest.

Like
all complex societal problems, some people benefit from a problem and most
people have to pay. All this controlling demands many (new) technological
devices and provides work for a whole sector of industry, which is glad to
supply the new interventions. Total surveillance of people by technological
interventions cost much money, but has it the intended effect? Does it prevent
terrorism? The effect is controlling people. Is this the actual goal of all
these interventions? Controlling has a direct negative effect on civil rights
of people, their feeling of freedom and the democracy of the state.Controlling provokes fear and fear provokes the demand for safety. It
is striking that these freedom provoking acts are initiated during the Bush
junior administration by the country of liberty and democracy: the
USA
. Instead of freedom we are moving towards a society unfortunately well-known
under the former
USSR
and clearly shown in East-Germany in the period of 1945-1990 (DDR[9]).
We know what effect this had on the economic production and on the behavior
and well being of people.

Is
this the price people have to pay for their safety? Have these high
technological devices the effect of preventing terrorist attacks? Looking at a
huge attacks of 9/11
New York
, the set of many of the demonic measurements described above, one should
realize that all these measurements would not have prevented the attack. Some
of the people performing the attack on 9/11 (2001)[10],
were already in the
USA
, some of them were actually citizens of the
USA
and partly trained (as flying instructors) in the
USA
.

Legal
governmental control threatens the privacy of civilians, and by this it
threatens democracy. The civilian is under total surveillance before he or she
even has thought of an illegal act. All this controlling demands much
government money which is, as is shown in the Bush jr. Administration,
directly coming from healthcare and education.

Does
this kind of control really diminishes terrorism? Or does it only abuse
innocent civilians who are in this way provoked to unnecessary fear. And by
this imaginary fear, are willing to hand in their civilian’s rights of
freedom and are willing to pay more for control and war industry. The real
causes and the relation to terrorism are not thoroughly studied. The
measurements policy makers take, stimulated by technological business, are too
shallow and not very fruitful. Does the government really think that these
technological devices help?Or do
these devices serve an other purpose. Do governments use terrorist threats to
empower their grip on people, meanwhile not really doing something to prevent
terrorism?

5
Causes of terrorism

What
provokes a person to plan terrorist’s acts? What and who stimulate them to
do this? What are the causes of this behavior? In acting on terrorism several
acting phases can be distinguished. The prevention phase, the defending phase,
the actual attack phase, the phase shortly after the attack and the phase
after the attack. Most of the effort in fighting terrorism, political as well
as actual by the police and the army, is put in the defending phase and the
actual attack period. The other phases do not get much attention. However the
most important phase is the prevention phase: not to have terrorist attacks at
all. For preventing terrorism one has to know the causes of terrorism. There
are many causes of terrorism. The causes are complicated and complex related
which each other, such as the relation between power and idealism, between
fundamentalism, identity and religion, and between poverty and immigration.
For finding and analyzing the causes the theory of societal complexity and the
Compram methodology are needed. We will now only indicate some of the causes.

Poverty,
immigration, unemployment, school-drop out and identity

Poverty
seems to be one of the causes of terrorism. Lets have a closer look at this
aspect of terrorism as an illustration of how thinking about terrorism can be
approached. There is discrepancy between the rich developed and the poor
developing countries[11].
In most countries in the world there have been for thousand of years
agricultural activities. Agriculture is, next to trade, the major source of
living. Agriculture was often simple life with a low level of income, which
did not need a high level of education. The income The industrialization from
1850 on attracted people from rural areas to the cities, in order to find a
better way of living[12].
Here they could do simple work, that did not need a high level of education.
This urbanization can be seen world wide.

However
in the last decades the life in the cities became more complicated. After
computerization most simple jobs in the industry, which needed only a low
level of education, disappeared. The industry demanded a higher level of
education of the worker. The new immigrants, coming from the rural areas, have
now difficulty to adapt to the complexity of the large cities and to find
suitable work. This leads to many problems in large cities in Western European
countries such as
France
,
Germany
,
England
and The Netherlands as well as in large cities of the emigrant countries
itself such as in
Turkey
in
Ankara
and
Istanbul
. After 1975 immigrant laborers in Western Europe, coming from Arabic and
Asian countries are not so well coping as the predecessors coming from
Southern Europe:
Greece
,
Italy
and
Spain
in the period of 1960-1975. The major differences with the former group of
laborers are the industrial demands and on top of this the differences in
religion, language and family relations. Marrying persons from the home land,
and the pressure of the (fundamental) religious centers supported by their
home land, made the integration slower than expected. Introducing new
inhabitants from rural areas, that have conservative religious and cultural
ideas, people with low education, into a society, where a huge emancipation
and secularization wave just is realized, is at least a challenging idea. The
immigration policy of the Westeren European states had many unforeseen and
unwanted effects, which made the small benefits of the industry having cheap
laborers, change into huge costs for society and ended up in the so-called
large city problems (DeTombe, 2003).

The
issues large cities are confronted with are problems in the field of urban
planning, education, house shortage, transportation, economics, healthcare,
ecology, crime, law and order and immigration, resulting in social tension.
All these issues are closely related to each other, and can been seen as an
integrated interdisciplinary complex societal problem. Not
all large city issues are related to immigrants, but they are more frequent
represented in trouble making groups then other groups of the society. This is
especially seen in the group youngsters, the second and third generation
immigrants, being school-drop-outs, and having huge unemployment and identity
problems. Many new immigrants are not able to find suitable jobs which leads
to unemployment of the parents and school-drop-outs and identity problems with
the second generation. Because of the language differences at home, and
probably also the cultural differences, there is a high amount of school
drop-outs among children of immigrants. Without a finished education it is
very hard to get any job in
Western Europe
. This leaves many secondary immigration youngsters, especially males, with a
low or even negative identity. A way to be somebody, to have some money, to
buy nice things, could be acquired by engaging criminal activities. An other
way to create an identity is to become a member of a group and it this way the
so-called illegal fundamentalist terrorist networks can provide an identity
and can be challenging for vulnerable male youngsters. In a terrorist group these youngsters might find a new
identity.

Housing,
accessibility and ghetto forming became also one of the large city problems.
The abandoned houses in
Amsterdam
, often of minor quality and low prizes, owned by large housing corporations
were rented to new immigrants. In
Amsterdam
in the West the Moroccans, in the East people from
Turkey
and in the South–East (Bijlmer) people from elsewhere. This situation is
growing towards ghetto forming, in which autochtones move out the area and
immigrants move in. Now 47% of the population of
Amsterdam
is from non-Dutch decent (Crok, Slot & van Antwerpen, 2002, p.15).

The
role ofreligion

The
major goal of any religion, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Islamic or
Christianity is to have power over people. This power often exceeds the
borders of a state. This power goes together with wealth, such as the enormous
power and wealth of the Roman Catholic Church from about
450 A
.C till now. Religion stimulates and regulates fear and anxiety and gives
people directions to live and an identity. Next to this, religion promises an
eternal (happy) life, which thus overcomes death. Religion is often been a
source of war and fights between people because of the power over people, a
territory or a state. Also nowadays people of different religion are set up
against each other in the name of religion.

Religious
fundamentalism is often an inhuman way of living for women and sometimes a
source for violence (terrorism). Religion has many aspects: personal, cultural
and societal aspects. Some of the personal aspects of a religion are belonging
to a group, having a guidance for living and the aspect that religion allays
the fear of dying by promising a beautiful eternal life after death. These
aspects are often considered as positive. Looking at religion as a societal
institution, religion is mainly a power element. Imposing religion on a person,
imposes a certain way of living on the person. When people refuse to submit
themselves to this kind of religion the punishments can be severe. The
stronger the religion imposed on people, the more fundamentalist the religion
is, the more strict the behavior restrictions are and the more severe the
punishments are for disobedience[13].

Religion
is one of the elements that played a role in terrorism. Some of the recent
terrorist attacks in West Europe and
USA
(9/11,
Madrid
,
London
) seem to be provoked by terrorism based on religious ideas. Like in many
European countries the tension between the immigrants which have a Islamic
religious background and the autochtones having an (Roman-) Christian
background grew after the September 11th attack (2001). Suddenly
people realized their cultural and religious differences[14].
Most immigrants were and still are religious in a moderate way. Fundamentalist
religion only gains in power after the midst of the twenties century. In
countries like
Turkey
, where a large part of the Dutch immigrants come from, the state is not ruled
by the Islam but by a political regime in which belief and politics are
separated[15].

.

Increasing
the level of living

A
way to decreasing the immigration flow of low educated people into large
cities is by diminishing the gap between the rich and poor countries. This can
be done by increasing the level of living in rural areas. This idea is based
on the suggestion that most people immigrate out of economic reasons.
Increasing the level of living could also be a way to diminish terrorism,
given the idea that terrorism often is caused by feelings of unhappiness with
the contemporary life circumstances, which in turn can be provoked by poor
living conditions. in poor living conditions people are more vulnerable for
ideas of fundamentalism , and some of the terrorist acts are provoked by
fundamentalism.

A
project of the Middle East Technical University(METU), a large international oriented university in Ankara,in the Balaban Valley (Abee, 2006), a rural area near Ankara, is an
example of mitigating indirect terrorists threats by increasing the level of
living in that area, in order to prevent immigration. The Balaban project is a
pilot project along the lines of some ideas of the Compram methodology. This
project near
Ankara
is performed by a group of scientists of the
Middle East
Technical
University
, cooperation with the local people in the area. The project is called:
Balaban Valley Project: Improving the Quality of Life in Rural Area in
Turkey(Gökmen, Kayalıgil,Weber,Gökmen,Ecevit,Sürmeli,
Bali
, Ecevit, Gökmen, DeTombe, 2004). In this project a five component approach
for increasing the level of living in an area is followed. Improvements in the
areas of agriculture, industry, education, emancipation and healthcare. The
ideas of this project are: Agriculture: fertilizing the ground, by reforesting
and replanting shrubberies[16],
in order to keep the water and improving the way of doing agriculture to
improve the harvest. This will improve the food for the animals and the
quality of the vegetables and grain. And in this project corn will be
cultivated to make biological based fuel (bio-gas). This will include a
training program for farmers. Industry: setting up small sustainable industry.
The educational system in the area will be improved by creating possibilities
to attend secondary school and agricultural and industrial preparation
schools. Emancipation of women by women support groups, by increasing the
communication possibilities via the community house[17]
increasing the education of women and getting (paid) jobs for women.
Healthcare: improving the healthcare facilities by regularly visiting
physicians. This approach will be implemented parallel if possible. This five
component approach when successful will increase the level of living[18].
Increasing the standard of living is a way to prevent fundamentalism and to
prevent immigration into large cities which both can be sources of criminal
activities and/or terrorism.

The
different causes of terrorism need different interventions. Interventions like
diminishing the gap between rich and poor, like given the second generation
immigrants jobs and a feeling of belonging, so the youth is not challenged to
join a terrorist group, preventing unprepared immigrants to move to the
complicated situation in large cities by increasing the level of living in the
rural areas and trying to diminish the influence of fundamentalism. In all
causes education plays an important role. Education gives people knowledge and
information how to adapt to complicated situations, education gives women the
opportunity to live an independent life so they are no longer vulnerable to
fundamentalism, and education diminishes the gap between the rich and poor
countries.

6
Global safety

There
is much attention on terrorism. Is terrorism the only threat to safety? The
emphasize on terrorism is so huge because terrorism attacks the stability of
the state; items that threaten the only people often get less attention (see
New
Orleans
disaster, 2005).

For
making the world a better place to live, global safety have to be addressed.
This needs knowing where the threats come from. Global Safety is a buzzword,
brought to the attention of politicians after the 9/11 (2001) incident. What
kind of concept is global safety? The world is threatened by many different
kinds of dangers. Indicated by causes there are global and local natural and
man made threats[19].
World wide natural threats are threats caused by viruses such as the flu
pandemic, fowl plague and HIV/Aids, local natural threats are threats such as
hurricanes, avalanches and floods. Man made global threats are threats like
climate change, world wars, global terrorism, internet vulnerability and stock
exchange manipulation and man made local threats are threats like pollution,
traffic danger, terrorism, nuclear power plants and agricultural business.
Terrorism is a global as well as local man made threat. These dangers threaten
people, the economy and the stability of states. Terrorism is just one of the
threats.

In order to create a safer society one needs to know where the danger
comes from and what causes the threats. Each threat has different causes and
different effects on different elements in society. Each threat needs a
different set of interventions. In order to cope with the different
manifestation of danger one should look beyond the effects of the danger to
find the causes. Therefore one has to carefully analyze the situation, make a
distinction between causes and effects, to see what the phenomena are and how
they are related, see which power groups are involved and to find out which
package of sustainable changes can have the desired effects.

Creating
a safer society needs more and other things than technological innovation only.
It connects to nature and culture. A safer society is connected to protection
from nature wind, water, sun and earth quakes. A safer society is connected to
all cultural elements in society, like people, government, organizations,
industry and infrastructure. A safer society has a direct link to the poverty
gap on micro, meso and macro level and to education. How to deal with societal
threats is a part of the field of handling complex societal problems.

As
indicated above most interventions of the government against terrorism are in
the line of installing technological control devices. In the OECD
report on global safety (July 2006) there are several reasons mentioned why
technology-based
development projects for enhancing societal safety are not always successful[20]:

‘1)
The societal issues are very complex, with many stake-holders and multiple,
intricate social interactions. It can be difficult to even identify the most
essential elements of the safety problem. Typically, a solution realised
within a single S&T[21]
domain can only resolve a small portion of the entire complex problem.

2)
The safety issues are composed of not only technical aspects but social
aspects as well. In fact, in most cases the latter are dominant, and any
purely technological solution cannot be fully effective if it does not
adequately account for the human dimension.

3)
Many safety challenges are inherently multi-disciplinary, but, unfortunately,
the body of accumulated useful knowledge (principles, theories, techniques,
devices, best practices, etc.) is largely fragmented: that is, its elements
typically remain confined to the narrow circle of experts in each domain, and
are not available to the wider hazard-reduction community, including persons
who are concerned about (and/or may be among the potential victims of)
existing or emerging threats.

For
the above reasons, there is a need for an innovative approach to develop
effective measures to resolve societal safety issues, utilizing the full
strength of S&T.’

Handling
complex societal problems needs a special approach. Handling societal problems
in an interdisciplinary way has become a must for our society. The challenge
is to combine the knowledge of the social sciences, technological sciences and
natural sciences in such a way that new knowledge and insights are created.
The problems society is confronted with are difficult to handle. There is a
growing gap between the complexity of these problems, the need for
interdisciplinarity and the way the knowledge, for instance on universities,
is organized. There is a need for better methods and tools, more knowledge and
imagination. Scientific knowledge is needed to survive amidst these problems.

Therefore
the theory of societal complexity is field of scientific attention which
combines knowledge from different sciences. Some of the scientific and real
life reasons for this special approach are that the complex societal problems
are seldom completely defined, change during their development, involve many
actors each with a different view on the problem, with different interest and
with different ‘solutions’ in mind, have a large impact on society and
involve a large amount of money. In handling complex societal problems
technology supported by science can play a role, however, only as an extension
of human capacity not as submitting human capacity. Handling these kinds of
problems belongs to the field of theory of societal complexity. The claim of
this field is that complex societal problems should be handled in according to
the approaches, methods and tools in the field of societal complexity.

To
find out what we know about the problem, who is effected by it, which parties
are involved, who benefits and who suffers, what emotions and political
vulnerability are going on, one has to analyze the problem. This needs an
interdisciplinary approach. An interdisciplinary group of knowledge experts
should analyze the situation and discuss possible changes. Then stakeholders
should discuss the issue and give their opinion on the situation. Together the
experts and stakeholders should find some fruitful changes. The interventions
should be carefully implemented and evaluated on their desired effect on the
problem. Each complex societal problem has a knowledge, a power and an
emotional element.

“For more than ten years, the
International Research Society on Methodology of Societal Complexity has been
coordinating the work of over two hundred researchers from many disciplines in
Europe, North America and Turkey on the topic of handling complex societal
problems. This field combines multidisciplinary expert knowledge with the
different views of stakeholders taking emotions into account. This approach,
based on the COMPRAM method, supports the problem handling process of complex
societal problems from awareness via changing to implementation and evaluation.

The
Bird’s Eye View approach is in harmony with various existing approaches
called holistic approaches or integrated approaches. For example, operations
research, which attempts to provide those who manage organized systems with an
objective and quantitative basis for decisions, is characterized by the
systems approach and the use of interdisciplinary teams. The systems approach
to problems recognizes that the behaviour of any part of a system has some
effect on the behaviour of the system as a whole. Operations research is
normally carried out by teams of scientists and engineers drawn from a variety
of disciplines[22].“

Some
of the recommendations of the OECD
(Report on global safety report, July 2006) are:

‘Recommendation 1:

The
Bird’s Eye View approach to problem-solving is a promising method for
identifying the essential characteristics of a complex problem and for
implementing solutions based on an optimal combination of knowledge about the
material world (traditional science and technology) and knowledge about
societies and individuals. When properly applied, it allows researchers to
apply the full power of scientific and technological knowledge for effectively
enhancing societal safety. Research projects that are based on this innovative
method are complementary to traditional discipline-specific projects, and can
be applied with these methods in a synergistic way. The BEV approach promises
to be particularly effective in addressing safety issues in a way that fulfils
high-level social policy goals.

There
exist, however, inherent obstacles to realising the full power of the Bird’s
Eye View approach. To overcome these, its value should be explicitly
recognised, and strong initiatives put in place in coordination with all of
the relevant institutions at the national level, transcending traditional
institutional boundaries. Interested countries should consider establishing
university-based multidisciplinary research institutes devoted to studying
(and developing solutions for) complex societal hazards. These institutes
should have be endowed with a sufficient amount of stable funding, such that
there effectiveness can be assessed following an appropriate predetermined
time interval.

Recommendation
2:

International
cooperation within the established boundaries of recognised S&T
disciplines has a long tradition, and is relatively easy to arrange.
International research groups can be formed with a focused theme, bringing
together researchers with similar backgrounds. On the other hand, to promote
the BEV approach on a global scale, special care is required since it is based
on interdisciplinary studies which do not have established procedures,
traditions and sources of funding.

Since
many threats to societal safety have an international (even global) dimension,
and since expertise and other resources are widely distributed around the
world, international cooperative projects based on the Bird’s Eye View
approach deserve the support of national authorities and appropriate
international bodies. The existence of strong programs at the national level
is a prerequisite for such international efforts.

Recommendation
3:

Countries
that are most at risk due to various emerging complex hazards are often the
ones that are least able to protect themselves by applying science and
technology. Such applications are most readily developed in OECD countries,
but their broader application must take into account the specific conditions
and constraints that apply to the area where the solution is to be applied.
Fortunately, this necessary flexibility is an inherent feature of the Bird’s
Eye View approach, within which knowledge of individuals, groups, cultures and
entire societies is explicitly combined with scientific and technological
knowledge.

The
Bird’s Eye View approach aims at developing general methodologies that are
applicable to a wide rage of similar problems. It also seeks to identify the
for the best combinations of S&T and social system methods. For solutions
to be transferred from one country to another, the S&T components have to
be adapted to any new conditions and requirements that characterise the social
system in question. The Bird’s Eye View approach may serve as a tool for
technology transfer related to the resolution of safety-related societal
issues. To realise this, appropriate consultations and actions should be
undertaken by the international community.’

Multi-disciplinary
knowledge on how the handle societal complexity is highly needed in the world.
In order to develop this knowledge special multi disciplinary knowledge
institutes for societal complexity are needed.

In
order to handle global safety in the world, to be aware of future and
now-a-days dangers and threats, the states need to establish institutes that
perform multi disciplinary research for handling complex societal problems.
These multi-disciplinary institutes develop and combine the knowledge, the
methodologies and tools for handling societal complexity. To accomplish this,
each state should establish multi-disciplinary centers for research on
societal complexity.

To
get some insight into this problem one needs a thoroughly scientifically based
methodology on which teams of experts and actors can make a good analysis of
the situation and, based on simulation models and scenario’s, see where
changes can be made. This can be done by the scientifically based methodology
Compram[23]
for handling complex societal problems.

The
Compram methodology (DeTombe, 1992, 1994, 1997, 1999, 2001a, 2001b, 2003) is
especially developed to handle complex interdisciplinary worldwide problems
and offers a step-by-step approach of analyzing the problem and finding ways
of sustainable intervention. The Compram methodology offers a bird’s-eye
view on the complexity of the problem in a transparent democratic process.

To
find out what the problem is, who is effected, which parties are involved, who
benefits and who suffers, what emotions and political vulnerability are going
on, one has to analyze the problem. This needs an interdisciplinary approach.
An interdisciplinary group of knowledge experts should analyze the situation
and discuss possible changes and acceptable interventions. Then stakeholders
should discuss the issue and give their opinion on the situation. Together the
experts and stakeholders should find some fruitful changes. The interventions
should be carefully implemented and evaluated on their desired effect on the
problem. Each complex societal problem contains a knowledge, a power and an
emotional element.

Several
phases can be distinguished in handling terrorism. The phase of prevention,
the phase of defending, and the phase of handling the effects of the attack
after the terrorist attack. Each phase needs attention, however most of the
attention should go to the prevention phase. Finding the causes by looking at
organizations that support or initiates terrorist acts, finding out who
support these terrorist acts with what means of money, knowledge and training,
prevent the individual to enter a terrorist group and find reasons for
terrorist acts. How to prevent terrorist acts, how to coordinate the support
on the moment of the attack, how to communicate and how to create a
sustainable support afterwards is prescribed by the Compram methodology. The
Compram methodology is a scientific developed methodology to handle societal
complexity

The
theory of societal complexity (DeTombe, 1994, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2008)
recognizes twelve phases in the problem handling process (see figure 1). The
phases should be followed in the prescribed order, but can also be used
iterative, meaning that one can not skip a phase but one can go back to
earlier phases of the handling process if necessary.

Sub-cycle 1: Defining the problem

phase 1.1becoming
aware of the problem and forming a (vague) mental idea

phase 1.2extending
the mental idea by reflection and research

phase 1.3putting
the problem on the agenda and deciding to handle the

problem

phase 1.4forming
a problem handling team and starting to analyze the

problem

phase 1.5gathering
data, exchanging knowledge and forming hypotheses

phase 1.6formulating
the conceptual model of the problem

Sub-cycle 2: Changing the problem

phase 2.1constructing
an empirical model and establishing the desired goal

In
this article the
description on terrorism can be seen as the first phase of the problem
handling process. When this idea is taken seriously the next step of extending
one’s idea about this can be done by thinking, discussing and reading (phase
1.2). Then one can try to put this on an (international) agenda (phase 1.3).
When accepted, this problem can be taken up by the problem owner, who can
start handling this problem (phase 1.4 to 2. 6). This needs a good and
thorough scientifically based methodology.

The
Compram methodology is a good and thorough scientifically based methodology
for analyzing and handling societal complexity. The methodology is based on
the idea that handling complex societal problems should be done with a team of
experts and actors. The problem handling process should be open, transparent
and possible to follow by and be controlled by outsiders. The Compram
methodology is based on the idea that each societal problem is based on
elements of knowledge, power and emotion.

The
Compram methodology has six basic steps (see figure 2). Each step is performed
by a group of problem handlers guided by a facilitator. The problem owner asks
a facilitator to guide the problem handling (process problem handling phase 2,
Compram methodology step 1).

step 1analysis and description of the problem by a team of neutral content

experts

step 2analysis and description of the problem by different teams of actors

step 3identification of interventions by experts and actors

step 4anticipation of the societal reactions

step 5implementation of the interventions

step 6evaluation of the changes

Figure
2: The six steps of
the Compram methodology

Step
1 of the Compram
methodology

In
the first step of the problem handling process the facilitator invite experts
with knowledge of a part of the problem. For the first question ‘How are the
assets divided among the people of the world’ experts of the field of
economic, politics, psychology, agriculture, commerce, developing countries,
and religion are invited. Each expert sees by her/his education a part of the
problem (see figure 2).

Figure
3 Every experts sees a part of the problem, colored by her/his own field of
knowledge

A
carefully composed team of experts describes together the problem and by
explaining to each other what certain aspects mean in their field, how this
should be interpreted and how they are related. The experts interpret
knowledge given by the other experts for their own field. In this way the
problem handling team is able to form an overview of the problem. The experts
meet several times analyzing the content on knowledge, power and emotions.
They analyze which actors are involved, which unorganized groups are affected,
what goals different groups have and which directions these groups would
support and which not, and what their power is. The emotions will be analyzed
in relation to the ideas or goals of the actors. The combined knowledge of the
experts, the definition of the problem, will be described in a seven layer
model (DeTombe, 1994). This model is created to ease the communication between
the experts of different fields. In each layer of the seven layer model the
knowledge is given in a different way, from a description of the problem in
words, to defining the concept and the status of the knowledge to describing
the problem in ways of a causal model, into a conceptual model with the help
of a simulation model (system dynamic model). This is done through an
iterative process of describing the problem based on the discussion between
the experts.Part by part the
seven layer model is filled, until the group of experts is convinced that this
description of the issue represents the definition of the problem. This is
phase 1.4 to 2. 6 of the experts.

Figure
4: The seven-layer communication model of the Compram methodology

In
layer I the problem is described in a natural language, in words, each team
member understands.

In
layer II the concepts and the phenomena used in the description of the problem
in layer I are defined. In this way the team members are stimulated to
operationalize and define the concepts and phenomena they use. This gives
other team members the opportunity to learn the concepts of other professions,
and its prevents verbalism[25].

In
layer III the relations between the concepts and the phenomena of the problem
are described in natural language. These relations can be based on theories,
hypotheses, assumptions, experiences or intuition. This indicates the status
of the knowledge. This layer is related to the description of the problem in
layer I, to the definition of the concepts and the phenomena in layer I and to
layers IV, V, VI, and VII.

Layer
IV shows the knowledge islands. This is a graphic representation of the
knowledge of the problem that is needed for handling the problem. The way the
knowledge islands are filled indicates the completeness of the knowledge.

In
layer V a semantic model of the problem is made. A semantic model is a graphic
representation of the relations between the concepts and the phenomena of the
problem described in layer I.

In
layer VI a graphic representation of the causal relations between the concepts
and the phenomena of the problem is shown.

Layer
VII contains a system dynamic model of the problem based on the causal model
in layer VI. The system dynamic model contains non-linear connections because
of the repetitive interactions between the phenomena and the actors in the
model.

Parts
of the problem and of the different domain knowledge can be worked out in more
detail in sub-sheets of the layers I to VII. The sub-sheets of one domain are
internally connected and are externally connected to the overall problem. It
is often necessary to focus on a part of the problem in detail to get a better
view. Otherwise the models are too large to comprehend. The seven-layer model
can be used to support the first sub-cycle of the problem handling process as
well as the second sub-cycle (see DeTombe, 1994) (see figure 1).

Step
2 of the Compram
methodology

The
second step of the Compram methodology deals with power. In the second step of
the Compram methodology the actors are invited. These are the main actors in
the problem. They are invited to give their view on the problem, to see on
what conditions and to what extend they like to cooperate and which goals and
desires they have. Realizing that the world is what it is, the methodology
recognizes that major groups of people are not strongly enough represented in
these kinds of problem handling processes. The Compram methodology explicitly
includes unorganized groups, like in this case, people from developing
countries, women, and elderly people as discussion partner in the handling
process. Each actor group can, supported by the facilitator, analyses the
problem and define the problem expressed in a seven layer model supported in
the same way by a facilitator as the experts. Handling complex societal
problems is difficult not only because the different kind of phenomena, but
also taking the values and ethical aspects of people into account. This is
phase 1.4 – 2.4 of the handling process of the actors.

Step
3 of the Compram
methodology

In
step 3 of the Compram methodology the representatives of the actors groups and
the experts discuss together their view on the issue of democracy and the more
equal distribution of assets among the people of the world. This is the
negotiation step in order to diminish the gap between the rich and poor
countries. Many issues in a democracy need to have mutual agreement of the
actors involved. In step 3 of the Compram method the actors will explain and
negotiate their point of view, the definitions and models, the differences and
similarities, with each other and with the experts. The comparison between the
views of the actors and that of the experts is made easier by structuring the
description of the problem in the same structured way by using the seven layer
model including the system dynamic models. Based on scenarios, what–if
exercises and try-outs with the models, suggestions can be made for changing
the problem to wards the mutual agreed goals. This is phase 2.3 and 2.4 of the
problem handling process.

Step
4 of the Compram
methodology

Before
the changes are implemented the societal reactions must be heard. When the
group of representatives agree with each other on certain kinds of
interventions, it does not mean that the rest of the world will agree
automatically. There for, the outcome of the agreement between the actors and
the experts of step 3 of the Compram methodology will be published and is open
for discussion with the rest of the people who are involved. In this case the
rest of the world, or at least some representatives of the rest. This is step
4 of the Compram methodology. Depending on the reaction of those people the
problem handling process can continue or should be brought back to the
negotiation table: step 3 of the Compram methodology or sometimes even to step
two or one, the definition part.

Step
5 of the Compram
methodology

When
agreed upon several possible changes, these interventions can be implemented,
carefully guided by a group of problem handlers and the facilitator. This is
step 5 of the Compram methodology.

Step
6 of the Compram
methodology

Directly
after step 5 of the Compram methodology the problem handling process itself
should be evaluated. Is the problem handling process performed in the right
way? Are issue overseen? What can be improved next time? This is step 6 of the
Compram methodology. After several years, the implementation should be
evaluated. What is changed meanwhile in the world? Are the goals still valid
and wanted? Is the effect of the intervention some steps nearer to the desired
goals? Often at this moment in time, parts of the problem handling process
should be performed again, because complex societal process tent to change,
often, unexpectedly and suddenly in unforeseen directions.

8
Conclusions

Terrorism
as such is an attack on the balance of a state, however terrorism is only one
of the global threats and in order to be safe attention should also be given
to other global safety threats like nuclear power plants, viruses, earth
quakes and floods.

Causes
of terrorism are different and complicated. There is a relation with poverty,
with differences between rich and poor people, with immigration, religion and
identity. Mitigation of terrorism starts with looking at the causes, by
analyzing the situation carefully, and by defining the problem. Terrorism is a
complex societal problem and should be approached as such. Controlling people
with all kinds of technological devices does not stop terrorism. It only
abuses the privacy of people. The theory of societal complexity dictates that
one first has to define the problem by a multi-disciplinary team of experts,
and by doing this finding the causes. Then after making scenario’s one has
to look for interventions that are directed to the causes. The emphasize
should be on the causes not on the effects. Technological intervention gives a
fake impression of safety. It does not effect the causes. Technological
interventions cover up thelack of
real treatment of terrorism. Terrorism as a complex societal problem should be
handled according to the theory of societal complexity with the methodology of
societal complexity: the Compram methodology.

A
complex societal problem is a multi disciplinary problem. For understanding
the problem one must combine knowledge from different disciplines by a multi
disciplinary team of mono disciplinary educated scientists. Together this
multi disciplinary team can make a system dynamic model and a description of
the problem in order to see what are the causes, the effects and emotions and
which power groups are involved. These analyses regards the knowledge issue.
Then the power and emotions issue should be taken care of. Power groups of
actors should be invited to give their view on the problem and on
interventions they proposed. Taking the emotions into account, changes can be
suggested and interventions can be implemented into real life. This problem
handling process can be performed in a structured, transparent and democratic
way according to the guidelines of the Compram methodology of by groups of
experts and actors guided by a facilitator.

In
order to create global safety the OECD (July 2006) strongly advised all OECD
countries to create multi-disciplined knowledge institutes to combine the
knowledge on safety with experts from different disciplines and to invite
actors involved in the complex issue to join the problem handling process. The
Compram methodology is one of the methods that is explicitely mentioned as a
methodology to handle these kind of problems in these knowledge institutes.

Kelman H, 2006 National Identity and the Role of the 'Other' in
Existential Conflicts: The Israeli-Palestinian Case. In volume 8 of the International
Scientific Journal of Methods & Models of Complexity, ISJ M&
MC, SISWO, Amsterdam, September 2004, ISSN-0928-3137, http://www.fss.uu.nl/ms/cvd/isj
Available at http://www.geocities.com/doriendetombe/detombeMMvolmue8terrorism.html

Landes,
D.S. (1998) The Wealth and Poverty of
nations. Why some are so rich and some so poor. New York: W.W. Norton
& Co.

[10]
The terrorist attack on the
World
Trade
Center
in
New York
and on the Pentagon in the
USA
on September 11, 2005, often indicated as 9/11. The attack was performed
by people with an Islamic religion by flying passengers airplanes into
these buildings and in this way causing many casualties and a world wide
shock.

[11]
Sometimes this discrepancy is continued within a country by the immigrants
coming from developing countries such as is to be seen in France in ‘le
banlieu’ (the suburbs).

[12]
Fast urbanization can be seen world wide and is one of the sources of
problems in the large cities all over the world.

[13]
To give some examples: in fundamentalist religion disobedience is punished
by shutting people out of the group, this is called shunting by the Amish
people in USA; in middle ages by the Spanish Inquisition, a religious
court of the Roman Catholic church, punishing Jewish people who refuse to
convert; by Islam law, the Sharia, the so-called avenge that gives the
family the ’legal space’ to kill a young female family member who have
a kind of unwelcome contact with man. All religions, but fundamentalist
variation of a religion more severe, try to control women’s sexuality,
and the power and influence of women. An extreme example of this is
clitoriodectomy which is still performed in
Egypt
and
Sudan
, another example is forcing women to wear a burka. Knowing what the
effect of religion is on the lives of women we can see that women have
nothing to gain by turning to a more fundamentalist religion. Knowing this
could be a start for intervention, because women have much to gain by
emancipation, by taking upthe
way other women live in their new homeland.

[14]
The tension between Islamic and Christian religion goes back to the 10th
century. The time of the crusades was actually a power fight between two
world religions both believing in the same god. Nowadays the tension
between these two major monotheistic religions can be found in the fights
between
Israel
and
Palestine
(Kelman, 2006).

[15]
This is challenged in 2007, 2008 by the AKP (Justice and Development Party
) of Erdodan in
Turkey
, who want a integration of religion and state.

[16]
Huge parts of the land in the area around the
Mediterranean sea
are worn out by more then 5000 years of agriculture and by free wandering
sheep and goats, which eat the roots of the young plants.

[17]
The community house is build in 2005 by the department of architecture of
the Middle East
Technical
University(METU) as a student project.

[18]
To be effective this takes a long time. This can only be seen after five
to more years. There is already proof that these kinds of improvements
works. It is successfully shown in
Israel
with much effort and knowledge from the people of the country itself and
supported by economical help from outside. The state of
Israel
changed from a bare country in 50 years into a modern up-to-date country
in European style (Meir, 1975).

[19]
Actually all threats are man made threats. For instance a flood is only a
danger when in low areas (delta’s) vulnerable houses are build., such as
is the case in
Bangladesh
and
New Orleans
in the
USA
. The same is the case with earthquakes, which has a natural cause,
however the effects are man-made. Like the very bad constructed school
buildings that where destroyed in
China
in
2008 in
the area of
Sichuan
in May 2008 which caused the death of many school children. The more
stable build houses in this area survived the disaster (Vriesekoop,
2008)).

[20]Science and Technology OECD report on
global safety, July 2006. The author is one of the composersand a key note speaker of the workshop that created this report in
Japan 2005.